Arkansas Const. Co. v. Mullins
Decision Date | 22 June 1901 |
Citation | 64 S.W. 225 |
Parties | ARKANSAS CONST. CO. v. MULLINS et al. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Little River county; Will P. Feazel, Judge.
Garnishee proceedings by F. W. Mullins and others against the Arkansas Construction Company, garnishee of J. H. Hall, and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and the garnishee appeals. Reversed.
On the 15th day of June, 1896, appellees, F. W. Mullins, J. W. Harris, and T. S. Mullins, partners as the Texas Produce Company, instituted their action in the Little River circuit court against J. H. Hall and B. T. Collins, partners as Hall & Collins, upon a promissory note for $1,897, which plaintiffs alleged was due and owing them by defendants, and asked for a judgment thereon. On December 9, 1896, a writ of garnishment was issued by the clerk of said court, addressed to the sheriff of Miller county, Ark., reciting the institution of an action against the defendant upon a promissory note in the sum of $1,897, with interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum from February 2, 1896, etc., and commanding the garnishee to appear on the first day of the next January term of said court, which would be the 4th day of January, 1897, and answer what goods, chattels, moneys, credits, and effects it had in its hands or possession belonging to said J. H. Hall, and to answer such further interrogatories as might be exhibited against it. The return of the sheriff on said writ is as follows: On January 13, 1897, judgment by default was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, J. H. Hall and B. T. Collins, for the amount claimed by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also on the same day took judgment by default against the following garnishee, Arkansas Construction Company, in the sum of $2,249.95. The construction company brought the cause by an appeal granted by the clerk of this court.
Read & McDonough, for appellant. Scott & Jones, for appellees.
HUGHES, J. (after stating the facts).
The return of service on the writ of garnishment in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grieve v. Huber
...... The. trial court erred in overruling exceptions to service and. jurisdiction, Const. Co. v. Mullins, (Ark.) 64 S.W. 225; the service was defective, Harrison v. Timber. Co., 14 ......
- Arkansas Construction Co. v. Mullins